GENTING SEMPAH REPORT-AMENDED 23-9-2020 CTT Edited

GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY TERRAIN MAPPING REPORT for
PERMOHONAN KEBENARAN MERANCANG MENGIKUT SEKSYEN 21, AKTA PERANCANGAN

BANDAR & DESA 1976 (AKTA 172) BAGI TUJUAN PENDIRIAN BANGUNAN UNTUK MEMBINA
PANGSAPURI PERKHIDMATAN YANG MENGANDUNGI:
FASA 1:
1 BLOK PANGSAPURI PERKHIDMATAN 38 TINGKAT (ARAS 3-40) 947 UNIT (BLOK A) DI ATAS;
i. 1 TINGKAT RUANG KEMUDAHAN YANG MENGANDUNGI GIMNASIUM, RUANG SERBAGUNA,
DEWAN SERBAGUNA, KOLAM RENANG, LANDSKAP DAN LAIN-LAIN KEMUDAHAN (ARAS 2)
ii. 1 TINGKAT RUANG PERNIAGAAN (16 UNIT) BESERTA RUANG FASILITI, SURAU DAN
SEBAHAGIAN TEMPAT LETAK KENDERAAN (ARAS 1)
iii. 4 TINGKAT ARAS BAWAH TANAH UNTUK TEMPAT LETAK KERETA (ARAS LG1-LG4) YANG
MENGANDUNGI:
a.1 PEJABAT PENGURUSAN DI TINGKAT ARAS LG1
b.1 PEJABAT PENGAWALAN TLK DI TINGKAT ARAS LG2
c.2 UNIT RUANG PERNIAGAAN, 1 UNIT PENCAWANG ELEKTRIK, 1 LOJI
RAWATAN KUMBAHAN, 1 KEBUK SAMPAH & BILIK-BILIK MEKANIKAL
(ARAS LG4)
FASA 2:
1 BLOK PANGSAPURI PERKHIDMATAN 39 TINGKAT (ARAS 2-40) 1050 UNIT (BLOK B)
DI ATAS LOT 10352, MUKIM BENTONG, DAERAH BENTONG, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR UNTUK
TETUAN SPARKLING REALTY SDN BHD
BY
DR TOH AND ASSOCIATES SDN BHD

A175 MENARA UOA BANGSAR
NO 5 JALAN BANGSAR UTAMA1
59000 KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 General
1.2 Site Location
1.3 Limitation and Liability
2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY AND METHODOLOGY 7

2.1 Scope of Study
2.2 Technique of Mapping
3.0 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA 11

3.1 Regional Geology
3.2 Site Geology
4.0 RESULT OF TERRAIN MAPPING 15

4.1 Topography
4.2 Hydrogeology
4.3 Slope Gradient
4.4 Terrain Component
4.5 Terrain analysis
4.6 Terrain Morphology/Landform
4.7 Activity of Slope
4.8 Erosion and Instability
4.9 Physical Constraint
4.10 Construction Suitability
5.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 30

5.1 Engineering Consideration of Various Geological
Materials
5.1.1 Residual Soil
5.1.2 Colluvial Slopes
5.1.3 Cut and Fill Slopes for Infrastructure
5.1.4 Fill Slopes
5.1.5 Weathering Profile
2
6.0 POTENTIAL GEOHAZARD 33
6.1 Landslides Geohazard
6.1.1 Previous Landslides around site location
6.1.2 Potential Landslide Based on Terrain Features and
Analysis
6.1.3 Identification of Anticipated Landslides and Relict/Recent
Landslide at site location
6.1.4 Surface Runoff Affects to Slope Stability
6.2 Seismicity and Earthquake Occurrence
6.2.1 Tectonic Setting
6.2.2 Incidences of Earthquakes in Relation to Study Area
6.2.3 Seismic Risk Zone Assigned to the Study Area
7.0. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

54
7.1 Conclusions
7.2 Recommendations
3
LIST OF TABLES
Table Table 4.1: TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION AND LANDUSE HAZARDS ZONATION

ATTRIBUTES (MINERALS AND GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT
OF MALAYSIA (2010)
Table 4.2: CONSTRUCTION SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Table Table 4.3: CONSTRUCTION SUITABILITY CLASSES AND TYPES OF SITE

INVESTIGATION REQUIRED
Table 4.4: OBSERVATION POINTS FOR TERRAIN MAPPING

(L1-L15)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Key map of the study area

Figure 1.2: Google image of the study area
Figure 2.1: Topography map of the study area
Figure 2.2: Base map generated from the survey drawing
Figure 3.1: Regional geology map of the study area
Figure 3.2: Simplified site geology map of the study area
Figure 4.1: Elevation map of the study area
Figure 4.2: Hydrological map of the study area
Figure 4.3: Slope gradient analysis map of the study area
Figure 4.4: Terrain component map of the study area
Figure 4.5: Terrain classification map of the study area
Figure 4.6: Location of photo and observation station at the study area
Figure 4.7: Terrain morphology map of the study area
Figure 4.8: Activity component map of the study area
Figure 4.9: Erosion and instability map of the project area
Figure 4.10: Physical constraint map of the study area
Figure 4.11: Construction suitability map of the study area
Figure 6.1: Contour pattern of concave features and convex features that
give indicators on potential landslide or instabilities.
Figure 6.2: Geohazard Map of the study area based on topographical data
Figure 6.3: Google Earth Image Map overlaid with anticipated geohazard
and recent/relict landslide
Figure 6.4: Slope shape and its impact on slope hydrology. Slope shape
determines whether water is dispersed or concentrated. (US
Forest Service, 1979).
Figure 6.5: The locations of the Bukit Tinggi earthquake in relation to the
study area. Adapted from Mustaffa Kamal Shuib (2009).
Figure 6.6: The spatial relationship between the Bukit Tinggi earthquakes
and the lineaments of the surrounding area. Adapted from
Mustaffa Kamal Shuib (2009).
Figure 6.7: Landsat image with the epicenters of the Bukit Tinggi
earthquakes and the nearest recording station, FRIM. Also
shown are the fault traces in the area obtained from GSD
(1985)
4
Figure 6.8: Earthquake Hazard Zonation MOSTI (2009)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
DR TOH ASSOCIATES SDN BHD has been appointed by as the consultant to carry out
geological terrain mapping for the project “PERMOHONAN KEBENARAN MERANCANG BAGI
PEMBANGUNAN DI LOT 10352 (PLOT 2), MUKIM BENTONG, DAERAH BENTONG,
PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR UNTUK TETUAN SPARKLING REALTY SDN BHD”.
The mapping was conducted on the properties at approximately 4.6 acres. This report presents
the result of site Geological Terrain Classification and Evaluation which was carried out by Wan
Mohamed Nizam Wan Isa, Pgeol (BOG Reg No.: 325) and lead by Rusli Abdullah, Pgeol (BOG
Reg No.107) from 27 August 2020 to 3 September 2020 as well as our geological terrain
mapping assessment based on the field data and desk study.
1.2 Site Location
The Project Site (4.6 acres) is meant for commercial development and is situated on Lot 10352
(Plot 2), Genting Highlands, Mukim of Bentong, District of Bentong, Pahang Darul Makmur. It
lies within Gohtong Jaya township i.e. about 3.6 km south west of the Genting Highlands
township as shown in Figure 1.1. Google image (Figure 1.2) depicts the site location of this
project.
The north boundary is accessible by Jalan Institut Aminudin Baki. The Kuala Lumpur-Genting
Highlands road and Jalan Institut Aminudin Baki become the perimeters for the north west and
north east boundaries of the project site respectively. The Project Site is mainly covered by
primary forest. Secondary vegetation or shrubs only found at landslide area or the disturbed
area. The landforms of the project site are a mix of hillcrest, side slopes and drainage valleys.
Generally, the Project Site consist of gentle to steep slopes which are dipping towards the
drainage valley at the centre south of the Project Site. The gentle areas are around the ridges
and closer to the drainage valley. The moderate to steep slopes are the side slopes within the
study area. The drainage valley flowing slightly towards south-west of the project site.
5
Figure 1.1: Location of the Project Site
Figure 1.2: Google Image showing the Project Site Location
6
1.3 Limitations and Liability
The ground is a product of continuing natural and manmade processes and therefore exhibits a
variety of characteristics and properties that vary from place and can change with time.
Geological terrain mapping involves gathering and assimilating limited facts about these
characteristics and properties in order to understand or predict the morphology of the ground on
a particular site under certain conditions. This document may report such facts obtained by the
supplied information. If so they are directly relevant only to the ground at the place where and
time when reported and are believed to be reported accurately.
Any interpretation or recommendation given in this report shall be understood to be based on

field observation and experience and not on greater knowledge of the facts than the reported
investigations would imply.
The interpretation and recommendation are therefore opinions provided for our Client’s sole use
in accordance with the appointment. As such, they do not necessarily address all aspects of
ground morphology on the subject site. This report may be disclosed to other professional
advisors assisting the Client in respect of the project concerned only. It is not intended for and
should not be relied upon by any third party. No liability is undertaken to any third party.
2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Scope of study
The scope of this study is as follows:
a) To map the surface geology and including rock type
b) To study and classify the geomorphology, hydrogeology and surface

terrain features
c) To evaluate and classify the proposed site for its suitability for construction
or development
d) To study and evaluate the anticipate geohazards of the study area

7
2.2 Technique of Mapping
The geological terrain mapping technique is an adoption of the method used in the Hong Kong
Geotechnical Area Study Programmed (GASP). The technique applied by the Mineral and
Geosciences Department involves the evolution of four attributes (Table 4.1) namely, the Slope
Gradient, Terrain, Activity and Erosion and Instability. However, a fifth attribute the
cover/vegetation on the hill slopes are also observed and the types and degree of
erosion/unstable on the hill slopes were correlated with this fifth attribute. Construction
Suitability Classification System and Type of Soil Investigation Required are shown in Table 4.2
and Table 4.3 Respectively.
The processes of geological terrain mapping can be summarized as follows:
i) Conduct of field reconnaissance survey to assess the accessibility, location of prominent

reference point or boundary stone with the general morphology of area.
ii) Study of aerial photographs to locate zones of instability, which include recent and relict
landslide scars, areas with prominent erosion and areas with soils creep, to study the
morphology, activity of slope and vegetation cover in the project.
iii) Preparation of a base map of the area using the Survey Data produced by Messrs
Studioukur Geomatics Sdn Bhd as shown in the plan No.: SG-PHG-80-SITE-A_PLOT2_PHG.
Survey drawing and base map are shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 respectively.
iv) Preparation of a slope gradient plan of the project area using ‘TIN’ software. This plan is
to be used as a guide when conducting field mapping (Figure 4.5).
v) Conduct of field survey. Locate reference points (boundary/iron pipe) by using

Global Positioning System (GPS). Conduct mapping from these reference points
assessing the four attributes and plotting them into the polygons. Locate and mark
the observation points on the base map and take four directions photos as a
reference later. Table 4.4 presents the observation points L1 to L15. The location of
observation points is shown in Figure 4.4
8
vi) On completion of field mapping, digitized the polygons and analysis the data using a GIS
Arc View Programmed. The product will be, a Geological Terrain Classification Plan (Figure
4.3) and Construction Suitability Plan (Figure 4.9).
vii) Conduct a field check on the finished products, redrawing the polygons if necessary.
vii) Re-analysis the amended polygons and produce finalized plan.
9
Figure 2.1: Survey drawing provided by Messrs Studioukur Geomatics
Sdn Bhd
Figure 2.2: Base map of the study area generated from the survey
drawings.
3.0 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Based on the Geological Map of Peninsular Malaysia (2014) published by the

Minerals and Geoscience Department Malaysia, the project site located in the Main
Range Granite of Peninsular Malaysia. The granite batolith, also widely known as
the Main Range Granite trends NNW-SSE, and intruded into the older sedimentary
rocks, which resulted in the occurrence of metasedimentary and metamorphic rock
roof pendants above the granite bodies. The age of the granite ranges from Lower to
Upper Triassic, while the older metasedimentary rocks are believed to be Upper
Paleozoic.
The granites of an Upper Permian to Upper Jurassic age show minor variations in
textures and compositions and have been separated into three main types. A non-
porphyritic, medium to coarse grained, biotite adamellite, outcrops in the north, whilst
a porphyritic, medium to coarse grained biotite granite is found in the south (Md. Nor,
1996) & (Shamsul, 1997). The meta-sedimentary rocks, of a likely Carboniferous
Age, have resulted from regional and contact metamorphism and consist of phyllites
and slates as well as quartz-mica, and amphibole-pyroxene, schists (Mohd Shaari,
1982).
The igneous rock consists of hypidiomorphic-granular, coarse-grained biotite granite.

Granite comprises essentially of quartz, feldspars and some black spot of biotite
and/or tourmaline. The rocks are tectonically deformed. The regional geological
map of the Project Site is shown in Figure 3.1.
3.2 SITE GEOLOGY
During the site reconnaissance survey, the project site is found to be underlain by
Main Range Granite. The granite outcrop of Grade II and III found at Locality 5
(Plate 1). No metasediment outcrop found at the project site.
11
Based on the boreholes done by Gagasan Teguh Sdn Bhd granite bedrock of various
depth found in the boreholes. The site geological map of the Project Site is shown in
Figure 3.2.
171/40
171/40 6/55
69/39 269/20
94/77
183/75
Plate 1: Granite outcrop (Grade II and III) found at Locality 5.
12
Figure 3.1: Regional Geology Map. After JMG (2014).
13
Figure 3.2: Simplified Site Geological Map of the Project Site. After JMG (2
14
4.0 RESULT OF TERRAIN MAPPING
4.1 Topography
The proposed site is situated entirely on hill crests and side slopes with an undulating
terrain as shown in Figure 2.1 topographical survey drawing. Drainage valley flows
slightly south west at the centre south of the project site. The ground elevation varies
from approximately EL 871 m at the south section (drainage valley area) to a height
EL 919.50 m at the north-east sections of the Project Site. Highest point is EL
919.52 m at the north-east section of the study area. The elevation map is presented
in Figure 4.1.
4.2 Hydrogeology
The proposed development site with a size of approximately 4.6 acres is a hilly and
undulating ground with slightly to very steep slopes and low-lying ground comprise
of drainage valleys. The proposed development site is mainly covered with
moderately to very dense vegetation of primay jungle. Only one drainage valley
(natural water flow) traverse through the proposed site which accumulate natural
springs that flows NW-SE AND NE-SW in the drainage valleys within the site and
from upper area. The site slopes catered for water catchment area for Sungai
Pahang Basin. The drainage valley in the project site flows slightly south-west into
the tributary of Sungai Naning at the lower altitude of the proposed site. All the
seasonal drains and streams in this area are the tributaries of Sungai Naning which
flown south-easterly into Sungai Tanglir. Sungai Tanglir then flown into Sungai
Pahang. Catchment area and seasonal drainage valleys are shown in Figure 4.2
hydrogeological map.
4.3 Slope Gradient
The slope gradient of the site is shown in Figure 4.3. The site is mainly moderately
steep slopes (16° - 25°) which cover 37.91% of the project site. The steep slopes
(26 - 35°) cover about 27.58 % of the project site. The flat to gently sloping areas (0 °
- 15°) cover 27.31% of the project site. Only 7.20% of the project site is covered by
very steep slope (>35°).
15
4.4 Terrain Component
The terrain components mainly consisting of hillcrest, concave side slopes, straight
side slopes, and convex side slopes. Terrain component map is shown in Figure
4.4.
4.5 Terrain Analysis
Land surface information including slope gradient, erosion and instability, as well as
land cover and vegetation are used to evaluate the potential geohazards of the site
and their physical constraints for development. The terrain classification map of the
site is shown in Figure 4.5 and the terrain attributes and its suitability for construction
are described in Table 4.1 to Table 4.3. The observation points with four directions
panoramic views (0°, 90°, 180° and 360°) are presented as Table 4.4 in Appendix
and marked on the plan as shown in Figure 4.6.
4.6 Terrain Morphology/Landform
The site is mainly consisting of hillcrest, concave side slopes, straight side slopes,
and convex side slopes. The drainage valleys flow in NE-SE and NE-SW direction
into the main drainage valley which flows slightly NNE-SSW direction approximately
at the centre south of the project site. The terrain morphology or landform map of
the site is shown in Figure 4.7.
4.7 Activity of Slope
Natural slopes either soil slopes or soil and rock slopes dominated the site with
primary and secondary forest cover most of the site. No cut slopes found within the
study area. No activity has been carried out within the study area (Figure 4.8)
4.8 Erosion and Instability
There is no serious erosion observed within the site which is mostly covered with
vegetation of primary and secondary forest except for the slope failure area which is
severely eroded. The erosion and instability map is presented in Figure 4.9.
16
4.9 Physical Constraint
The physical constraints map is shown in Figure 4.10. About 42.95% (1.98 acre) are
natural in-situ terrain with slope gradient steeper than 25º. These steep areas have
extreme geotechnical limitations for development and also may not suitable for
agricultural activities. The drainage valley should be properly mitigated to avoid
future geohazards that might occurred.
4.10 Construction Suitability
The construction suitability map (Figure 4.11) generate from the procedure explained
above showed that the area can be classified into the following classes: -
CLASS DESCRIPTION %
I Suitable for Development 25.37
II Suitable for Development 31.68
III Suitable for Development with 28.85
detailed geotechnical and geological
studies
IV Not suitable for Development 14.10
More than 85% of the land is classified as suitable for development. These areas are
located at the hillcrest and side slopes and indicate the suitability of the land used for
development.
The suitability of the site for development and construction is evaluated from the
terrain attributes and surface engineering geology, following recommended
procedures of the Minerals and Geosciences Department. The construction suitability
is classified into four classes (Figure 4.11).
Class I areas have low geotechnical limitations and highly suitable for construction.
There 25.37% of Class I areas cover the site. All these areas are flat to gently sloping
(<15°) without severe erosion or instability. Some cutting and filling of slopes are not
expected to be difficult as they generally follow the hill crest. These areas are not
expected to face foundation problems.
Class II areas have moderate geotechnical limitations and are moderately suitable for
construction. These areas are moderate slopes (16° - 25°) without severe erosion or
instability. They cover about 31.68% of the site.
17
Constructions in Class II areas will require cutting, filling, and erosion are expected
on bared slope when surface runoff is not properly channeled. Construction in these
areas is not expected to encounter any major foundation problems. Bedrock may be
encountered during excavation.
Class III areas have high geotechnical limitations and low suitability for construction.
The Class III slope is generally steep (26° - 35°) and covers about 28.85% of the
site. Construction in these areas will involves significant cut and fill. Severe erosion
may occur and the stability of the slopes can be a problem if they are not properly
attended. Excavation in these areas is likely to encountered bedrock. The cost of
development in these areas is expected to be high. A detailed site investigation and
geotechnical study should be carried out in Class III areas.
Class IV that is very steep hill slope (>35°) has extreme geotechnical limitations and
is unsuitable for development occurs in less than 15% of the site. These Class IV
areas occur in all the side slopes of the site (Figure 4.9). The stability of these slopes
shall be checked and improved (if required) to ensure safety of the surrounding
development. Development on Class III and Class IV area must obtain consent letter
from JKR Cerun prior to development order application to ensure EIA Report
submission approved by Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS). Geotechnical consultant has
to liase with JKR Cerun officers and submit their protection measures plan and
design for JKR Cerun approval.
PLEASE DELTE ITEMS IN RED
18
Figure 4.1: Elevation Map of the study area
Figure 4.2: Hydrological map of the study area
PROGEO CONSULT
20
Figure 4.3: Slope gradient analysis map of the study area
21
Figure 4.4: Terrain component map of the study area
22
Figure 4.5: Terrain Classification map of the study area
Figure 4.4: Location of photo and observation point (L1-L15)
Figure 4.7: Terrain morphology/landform map of the study area
Figure 4.8: Activity component map of the study area
Figure 4.9: Erosion and instability map of the study area
Figure 4.10: Physical constraint map of the study area
Figure 4.11: Construction suitability map of the study area
29
5.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
5.1 Engineering Consideration of Various Geological Materials
5.1.1 Residual Soil
The site is underlained by granite residual soil. Based on the soil investigation report
done by GAGASAN TEGUH SDN. BHD., the terrain had undergone weathering to
form residual soil of more than 7.5m up to 20m. Such soil that is mostly pale grey to
yellowish brown in colour, consists of mainly sandy SILT to silty SAND with coarse
gravel.
The characteristics of such residual soil slopes are only revealed when they are
being cut for various purposes such as final soil cut slopes. These residual soil
slopes often show a complete weathering profile from Grade VI (residual soil) to
Grade V (completely decomposed rock) and finally, Grade IV (highly decomposed
rock). The residual soil layer is generally thick and in some places, the layer is
estimated to be more than 30 meters.
5.1.2 Colluvial Slopes
Colluvial deposits noted on the old landslide area (LS1) at the study area ( Plate 5.1
to Plate 5.3). Apart from that no colluvial deposit encountered within the study area.
30
Plate 5.1. Colluvial deposit in the middle section of old landslide channel (LS1).
Plate 5.2 : Colluvial deposit near the toe of old landslide (LS1).
Plate 5.3. Colluvial deposit at the toe of old landslide (LS1).
31
5.1.3 Cut and Fill Slopes for Infrastructure
The presence part of study area requires the use of heavy machinery to cut and
bulldoze the hill slopes to form flat platforms and to make access road.
Cut slopes that are not protected are subject to varying degree of sheet, rill and
sometimes gully erosion. Erosion on cut slopes is not so severe as compared with fill
slopes, as the soil is still cohesive and can withstand erosion resulting from the
percolating rainwater.
To gain access to project area, track has to be prepared at the foot and along the
side slopes of the hills in the study area which may lead to instability problems. Cut
and fill slopes along such new access tracks are often unstable and are very
susceptible to rill and gully erosions.
Sheet erosion of fill materials dumped by the side of cut platforms can also be very
severe if not protected or covered by vegetations.
5.1.4 Fill Slopes
Land clearance for new development area may involves the practice of cutting the
side slopes or the ridges of the hills. The excavated material is dumped on the steep
slopes adjacent to the cut platforms. Such fill slopes inevitably have instability and
pollution problems.
These fill slopes are quite loose and lack the cohesion of the original residual soil.
The intense rainfall in the highland regions will results in the occurrence of severe
sheet, rill and gully erosion on the unprotected fill slopes.
Fill slopes are generally unstable and landslides are often present on such slopes.
The modes of failure include slump to planar failure that are always accompanied by
severe gully and rill erosion.
5.1.5 Weathering Profile
The weathering profile is characterized by lateral and vertical variations in the degree
of preservation of the minerals, texture and structure of the original bedrock. These
variations allowing for recognition of morphological zones and horizons that can be
correlated with rock mass weathering grades.
32
This project area is underlain by granite bedrock and has undergone severe chemical
weathering, producing a thick residual soil of various consistencies. The weathering
zones are developed approximately parallel to overlying ground surfaces and thicker
below the ridge crest and summits, but thin towards valley floor. The thickness varies
dependent upon several factors including the mineralogy and texture of the original
bedrock, the regional and local topographic settings as well as site geomorphic
history.
In general, the weathering profile can be categorized into six (6) grades (Grade I to
VI). Based on the site mapping, most of the site area are covered by residual soil and
completely weathered rock (Grade V to VI). Grade II and III bedrock is only exposed
at Locality 5. Grade I rock is not exposed at all.
6.0 Potential Geohazards
Studies on potential geohazards are focusing on the two major hazards which
anticipated to be relevant to the study area i.e landslides and seismicity (Earthquake
occurrence).
6.1 Landslide Geohazard
Landslides occur in many places around the world include fast-moving debris flows,
slow-moving landslides, and a variety of flows and slides. Very steep slopes, dense
vegetation and limited access to the natural slopes within and outside the study area
make it difficult to assess the potential geohazards at site. Studies on landslides
were carried out by below methodology:
1) To gather all available information on the previous landslides

occurrences in the vicinity of the study area
2) To study the google imaginary of the project site and its vicinity to look for
any instability signs including old landslide scars, recent landslides and
also sign of slope movement or creep if any.
3) To carry out site walk over survey to assess any instability signs and
evidence of relict or recent landslides if any.
6.1.1 Previous Landslides around site location in Genting Highlands and

Genting Sempah
33
There were a few previous landslide incidents reported around the project site;
Genting Highlands and Genting Sempah. Ibrahim and Fakhrul (2006) stated that
highlands areas such as Hulu Kelang, Cameron Highlands and Genting Highlands
are prominent and highly potential of landslide to occur. These are the landslide
incidents that were recorded in history shown in Table 6.1 below:
Table 6.1: Recorded landslide incident at Genting Highlands and its vicinity
Year Notes Source/ Quote by

June 1993 Landslide at Genting Highlands Chan, N. W. (2012),
1996 Landslide at the Genting Highlands slip road Faisal Hj. Ali and Tew Kia Hui.
2004 (2006)
1995 22 people were killed in the landslide at Genting Haliza Abdul Rahmana, Jabil
Highlands slip road near Karak Highway. Mapjabil (2017)
Masahiro Chigira, Zainab
Mohamad, Lim Choun Sian &
Ibrahim Komoo (2011)
Ngai Weng Chan. (2012),
Ng Kim Yeong (2012)
13 April 2006 A landslide occurred at 11 p.m. at Km 3.8 of the Genting Wikipedia
Sempah–Genting Highlands Highway.The landslide at
the new Chin Swee Bypass to Genting Highlands two
days ago caused soil and boulders to cover the road,
making it inaccessible to traffic. No one was apparently
hurt
2001 Landslide that killed 1 person near Genting Sempah. Masahiro Chigira, Zainab
Mohamad, Lim Choun Sian &
Ibrahim Komoo (2011)
21 October A man suffered light injuries when the front of his car was Wikipedia
2011 hit by a landslide at Km 13.9 of the Genting Sempah–
Genting Highlands Highway near Genting Highlands
18 November A landslide, caused by heavy rain, forced the closure of Wikipedia

2014 the Km 4.2 of the Genting Sempah– Genting Highlands
Highway heading towards Genting Highlands.
January 2016 A landslide has blocked all lanes in both directions on the Haliza Abdul Rahmana, Jabil
Karak Highway, the main highway that connects the Mapjabilb (2017)
capital Kuala Lumpur to Genting Highlands and other
parts of Pahang state. Four vehicles that were trapped in
the landslide, but all passengers managed to escape
unhurt.
18 November A landslide caused by heavy rain downpour midnight Malay Mail:
2014 was reported at Kilometrer 4.2 of the road to Genting 18 November 2014
Highlands. Closing the three-lane road to the resort area. New Straits Times:
18 November 2014
The fallen soil, however, buried a patrol car which was
parked at lookout tower, to check the situation
6 April 2018 Landslide near Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB) in Genting New Straits Times:
Highlands happened about 1.30am leading to the closure 6 April 2018
of the entire stretch. No one was reported hurt in the
road collapse, which affected a stretch of about 30- The Star Online:
metres along the busy road 7 April 2018
5 November A major landslide struck Genting Highlands in Bentong https://www.nst.com.my/

2019 on Tuesday (Nov 5), burying a portion of a road at a
popular tourist resort. The earth movement that occurred
after a non-stop downpour that began at 2pm, only
34
affected a portion of the Jalan Genting-Amber Court slip
road, and not the primary access road to the resort. No
one was injured in the incident.
It is believed that there are more landslides/slope failures incident at Genting

Highlands or its surrounding area which are not properly recorded and well-studied
by researchers.
Plate 6.1 to Plate 6.4 shows the landslide incident that occur on 18 November 2014
and 6 April 2018 that was recorded by news portal at Genting Highlands or its
surrounding area. These landslides caused a closure of entire stretch of main road.
Figure also shows the materials of landslide debris which are mixture of boulders and
weathered granitic soils.
Plate 6.1: Landslide that occur 18 November 2014 at kilometer 4.2 to Genting Highlands
35
Plate 6.2: Granitic boulders that block main road during landslide that occur on
18 November 2014 at kilometer 4.2 to Genting Highlands
Plate 6.3: Landslide that occur on 6 April 2018. The road stretch which collapsed
was from the main road leading to the hostel at Menara IAB (Institute
Aminuddin Baki)
36
Plate 6.4: Landslide that occur on 6 April 2018
6.1.2 Potential Landslide Based on Terrain Features and Analysis
It is important to understand the morphological terrain of the study area which may
have relation to slope instabilities. Table 6.2 shows the terrain features and its
relation to slope instabilities according to Roberts and Van Western (1996).
Table 6.2: Morphologic features charateristics of slope instabilities.

Terrain Features Relation to Slope Instabilities
Concave/Convex slope features (Figure 6.1) Landslide niche and associated deposit
Steplike morphology Retrogressive sliding
Semicircular backscarp and steps Head part of slide with outcrop of failure plane
Back-tilting of slope faces Rotational movement of slides blocks
Hummacky and irregular slope morphology Microrelief associated with shallow movements
or small retrogressive slide blocks
Infilled valleys with slight convex bottom, Mass movement deposit of flow-typr form.
where V-shaped valleys are normal
Hillshade map was generated from the topography survey provided by the client and
used to detect the terrain features and condition that may have relation to potential
slope instabilities and landslide. Hillshade viewing allows the user to be able to
visualize the terrain such that distinct landslide characteristics can be identified. The
most readily identifiable landslide features include the head scarp and flanks of a
slide which have characteristic arcuate (plan) shapes and steeper slope segments
near the crest. Other characteristics of landslides identifiable by hill shade viewing
include irregular stepped relief or flow-like features within the slide masses, convex
or concave surfaces and/or distinct toe areas.
37
Figure 6.1: Contour pattern of concave features and convex features that give
indicators on potential landslide or instabilities.
6.1.3 Identification of Anticipated Landslides and Relict/Recent Landslide at

site location
Google earth image was used to identify anticipated geohazards at site based on the
historical imagery observation (2015) embedded in Google Earth application. Apart
from that, information from site observation during 27 August 2020 also included in
the identification and interpretation of geohazards at study area. The observation not
only focusing directly to the study area particularly, but also looking around the
perimeter of Plot 2 that may contribute to the potential problems in the future. Figure
6.2 shows a Geohazard Map based on topographical data and Figure 6.3 shows the
Google Earth Image Map that was overlaid with anticipated and recent/relict landslide
at site.
One big landslide with a dimension of (28m width x 60m length) (LS1) was identified
during site investigation. The landslide extends from the existing drainage that was
damage and water still flow through it. Surface water from Jalan Institute Aminuddin
Baki into the valley had resulted in severe erosion and slips. Based on observation,
the material of the landslide is residual soil of granitic rock origin (Grade V to VI) with
some cobbles of quartz and granitic rock forming minerals. Plate 6.5 and Plate 6.6
shows the erosion induced slips a recent landslide that clearly observed at site
location. Plate 6.7 shows the exposed material of landslide observed at LS1.
38
Plate 6.5: Erosion induced slips at study area. The dimension of the landslide is 28m
width and 60m length. The material of the landslide shows a weathered granitic
material rich with sand and some cobbles of granite origin.
Plate 6.6: Erosion induced slips Extension of the landslide. There are water flows at
this landslide. Based on the site observation, the slip landslide area is the upper part
of the slope. Currently the drain has been damaged.
39
Plate 6.7: Material of the landslide indicate the granitic rock origin observed at LS1
An exposed terrain also observed during site investigation, located on the upper part
of LS1 (Plate 6.8). This area is marked as sensitive zone (SZ1 to SZ3) and will have
to be addressed in the geotechnical design which may allow erosion to occur and let
water seeps into the ground. This will burden the soil and then, reactivation of
landslide could occur. Plate 6.9 and 6.10 show the tension cracks noted on Jalan
Aminuddin Baki just above these two sensitive zones i.e. SZ2 and SZ3. It is
important that this be addressed in the geotechnical design.
Based on the 2015- Google Image Interpretation, there are two (2) other landslide
location inside the study area that can be seen (LS2 and LS3). LS2 is located near to
the L15 and LS3 near to L3. However, there are no clear scarp that observed during
site investigation as the area have been covered by secondary vegetation. LS2 and
LS3 were marked on the Geohazard Map shown in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3.
Apart from that, the historical Google Earth image also indicate another two (2) areas
of exposed terrain. 1) On the North-West of the study area, there are earthworks
have been conducted for development. This caused the originally stable terrain was
disturbed and the original water flow also could be distracted. The drainage that
connected from this development area shall be monitored to avoid excess and
uncontrol water flow directed to the project site. 2) Located within the study area
beside LS1 (in Figure 6.3). The google earth image shows exposed area that is
suspected to be eroded and allows the water to flow through it.
40
Plate 6.8: An exposed terrain located on the upper part of LS1. This allows water
and erosion to occur which caused the increasing burden and weight of the soil.
Landslide could re-occur at this area.
Plate 6.9: Tension cracks on Jalan Aminuddin Baki just above SZ2. This is reflective
of ground movements due to erosion and the erosion induced slips. Landslide could
occur at this area.
41
Plate 6.10: Tension cracks on Jalan Aminuddin Baki just above SZ3. This is
reflective of ground movements due to erosion and the erosion induced slips.
Landslide could occur at this area.
42
SZ1
SZ2
SZ3
Figure 6.2: Geohazard Map of the study area based on topographical data.
43
Figure 6.3: Orthophoto map overlaid with anticipated geohazard and recent/relict landslide
44
6.1.4 Surface Runoff Affects to Slope Stability
Hillslope geomorphology and hydrologic factors (surface water and ground water) are
important considerations in the stability of the site. Surface water will affect the
erosion of terrain surfaces. Slope morphology (straight, convex, concave) shown in
Figure 6.4 that gives an indication of surface and subsurface water concentration or
dispersion. Convex slopes (e.g., wide ridges) will tend to disperse water as it moves
downhill. Straight slopes concentrate water on the lower slopes and contribute to the
build-up of hydrostatic pressure. Concave slopes typically exhibit swales and draws.
Water in these areas is concentrated at the lowest point on the slope and therefore
represent the least desirable location for a road.
Figure 6.4: Slope shape and its impact on slope hydrology. Slope shape determines
whether water is dispersed or concentrated. (US Forest Service, 1979).
The potential environment impact predicted is mechanical and chemical evolution

process, which may result in soil erosion (sheet and rill) caused by surface run-off
water if proper drainage system is not constructed. This is due to the fine particles
such as clayey SILT layer at the upper most surface. The scale of erosion varies with
different gradient and occurrence of vegetation covered. The geomorphologic
process is more active at slope gradient more than 35° where the mass movement
(e.g. localized circular failure, slump, etc). At gentle slope (gradient <35°) the
process of transportation and deposition took place where the material of the top
surface usually contains lots of clay and silt, which might cause siltation and
sedimentation problem. Therefore, a proper drainage system is very important. With
proper engineering input on the slope design to ensure stability of slopes and proper
drainage system, the site is suitable and safe for development.
45
6.2 Seismicity and Earthquake Occurrence
6.2.1 Tectonic Setting
Peninsular Malaysia is part of the core of Sundaland which is relatively stable but
likely to experience very low seismicity (with the exception for the State of Sabah).
This owe to the fact that Malaysia is bordered by Indonesia and Philippines which
are the two most seismically active countries in the region. Therefore, Malaysia faces
a certain degree of seismic activities and earthquake risk from both sides. Major
earthquake which are generated from movements of tectonics plates located with
long distance from epicenters located in Sumatra Subduction Zone and Sumatra
Transform, Indonesia have been felt at the level of low to medium, in Malaysia
especially along the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
6.2.2 Incidences of tremors Earthquakes in Relation to Study Area
The tremors earthquake which occurred near Bukit Tinggi, Malaysia north of Kuala
Lumpur and far north of the study area at Petalling Jaya stimulated considerable
interests and debate due to its unlikely location, i.e. the core was supposedly stable
Sundaland (shelf). However, the Federal Capital and its environment is located near
the epicenters of ancient fault line zones.
There are four fault zones in Peninsular Malaysia: Bukit Tinggi, Kuala Lumpur, Lepar
(north of Pahang) and Seremban (Negeri Sembilan). The regional geological around
the study area are composed of the Kuala Lumpur Fault Zone and Bukit Tinggi Fault
Zone. These two fault zones generally, control the orientation of lineaments and
structure at Kuala Lumpur area. Figure 6.5 shows the locations of the Bukit Tinggi
earthquake in relation to the study area while Figure 6.6 shows the spatial
relationship between the Bukit Tinggi earthquakes and the lineaments of the
surrounding area according to Mustaffa Kamal Shuib (2009).
46
Study area
Figur
e 6.5: The locations of the Bukit Tinggi earthquake in relation to the study area.
Adapted from Mustaffa Kamal Shuib (2009).
Study Area
Figure 6.6: The spatial relationship between the Bukit Tinggi earthquakes and the
lineaments of the surrounding area. Adapted from Mustaffa Kamal Shuib (2009).
47
Thirteen tremors earthquakes were recorded between 30 November 2007 till 14
January 2008. The epicentres were all located in the vicinity of the Bukit Tinggi area
in Pahang. The nearest towns are Bandar Baru Bukit Tinggi, Genting Highlands,
Kampung Janda Baik, and Kampung Chemperoh. The tremors earthquakes were
located by the seismological stations maintained by the Seismology and Tsunami
Division of the Malaysian Metereology Department (MMD). All six stations on the
Malaysian Peninsula are a part of world-wide seismological stations network
(WWSSN) (Che Noorliza Lat & Ahmad Tajuddin Ibrahim, 2009). Figure 6.7 shows
the Landsat image with the epicenters of the Bukit Tinggi earthquakes and the
nearest recording station, FRIM. Also shown are the fault traces in the area obtained
from GSD (1985)
Figure 6.7: Landsat image with the epicenters of the Bukit Tinggi earthquakes and
the nearest recording station, FRIM. Also shown are the fault traces in the area
obtained from GSD (1985)
Table 6.3 shows details of the tremors Earthquakes incident recorded at Bukit
Tinggi. The largest earthquake in Bukit Tinggi were two 3.5s with the range of
magnitude between 2.5 to 3.5.
48
Table 6.3: Bukit Tinggi Earthquakes: November 2007 – January 2008 (Source:
MMD, 2008)
The shallow tremor earthquake at Bukit Tinggi area caused the reactivation of those
two faults (Bukit Tinggi and Kuala Lumpur faults). The fault reactivations are believed
to be the result of stress build-up due to the present-day tectonics in SE Asia
(Sundaland), especially the oblique, NNE-oriented subduction of the Indo–Australian
plate under the Sundaland. Therefore, the earthquake occurrences indicated that the
core of Sundaland is undergoing deformation and that earthquakes do occur in
Peninsular Malaysia. This imply that the intraplate deformation zone associated with
the Sumatran Subduction Zone is very wide and encompasses the Peninsular
Malaysia (Mustafa Kamal Shuib, 2009).
DELETE RED ABOVE
There are five seismic scales generally applied to calculate the magnitude of
earthquakes. These are:
(i) Mw - Moment Magnitude
(ii) ML - Local or Richter magnitude
(iii) Ms - Surface wave magnitude
(iv) Mb - Short period body wave magnitude and
(v) MB - Long period body wave magnitude
For this study, the assessment is done on local or Richter magnitude scale (M L).
Table 10.3 (6.4 ???) shows the correlation between the Richter magnitude scale (ML)
and the peak ground acceleration, duration of shaking and Modified Mercalli intensity
scale near the vicinity of the fault rupture. The local or Richter scale (M L) in Table 6.4
ranges from M L ≤ 2 - ≥ 8. Zero (0) correspond to approximately the smallest
earthquakes then being recorded. There is no upper limit to the Richter magnitude
scale and earthquakes over M L of 8 are rare (Richter 1935). For the case of small
earthquake, (M L < 6) the centre of energy release and the point where the fault
rupture begins are not far apart but different in large earthquakes where the point
may be very far apart. This increased release of energy over a longer rupture
distance resulted in both a higher peak ground acceleration amax and a longer
duration of shaking.
49
Table 6.4: Approximate Correlations between Local magnitude M L and Peak Ground
Acceleration amax, Duration of Shaking, and Modified Mercalli Level of
Damage near Vicinity of Fault Rupture
Local magnitude Typical peak ground Typical duration of Modified Mercalli intensity
ML acceleration amax near the ground shaking near the level near the vicinity of the
vicinity of the fault rupture vicinity of the fault fault rupture (Table 6.5)
rupture
<=2 - - I-II
3 - - III
4 - - IV-V
5 0.09g 2s VI-VII
6 0.22g 12s VII-VIII
7 0.37g 24s IX-X
8 >=0.50g >=34s XI-XII
Source: Yeats et al.1997, Gere and Shah 1984 and Houser 1970
Table 6.5: Modified Mercalli intensity level near the vicinity of the fault rupture from
USGS (1989).
Intensity Description/Damage
Reactions: Not felt except by a very few people under especially favorable circumstances
I
Damage: No damage
Reactions: Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many
II people do not recognize it as an earthquake.
Damage: No damage. Delicately suspended objects may swing
Reactions: Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings.
The vibration is like the passing of a truck, and the duration of the earthquake may be
III
estimated. However, many people do not recognize it as an earthquake.
Damage: No damage. Standing motor cars may rock slightly.
Reactions: During the day, felt indoors by many, outdoors by a few. At night, some people are
awakened. The sensation is like a heavy truck striking the building.
IV
Damage: dishes, windows, and doors are disturbed. Walls make a creaking sound. Standing
motor cars rock noticeably.
Reactions: Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened.

Damage: Some dishes, windows, etc., broken. A few instances of cracked plaster and
V
unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes
noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.
Reactions: Felt by everyone. Many people are frightened and run outdoors.
VI Damage: there is slight structural damage. Some heavy furniture is moved, and there are few
instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys.
Reactions: everyone runs outdoors. Noticed by persons driving motor cars.

Damage: Negligible damage in buildings of good design and construction, slight to moderate
VII
damage in well-built ordinary structures, and considerable damage in poorly built or badly
designed structures. Some chimneys are broken.
50
Reactions: Persons driving motor cars are disturbed.
Damage: Slight damage in specially designed structures. Considerable damage in ordinary
substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Great damage in poorly built structures. Panel walls
VIII
are thrown out of frame structures. There is the fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns,
monuments, and walls. Heavy furniture is overturned. Sand and mud are ejected in small
amounts, and there are changes in well-water levels.
Damage: Considerable damage in specially designed structures; well-designed frame

structures thrown out of plumb. There is great damage in substantial buildings, with partial
IX
collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. The ground is conspicuously cracked, and
underground pipes are broken.
Damage: Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures
destroyed with foundations. The ground is badly cracked. There are bent train rails, a
X
considerable number of landslides at river banks and steep slopes, shifted sand and mud, and
water is splashed over their banks.
Damage: Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges are destroyed, and train
XI rails are greatly bent. There are broad fissures in the ground, and underground pipelines are
completely out of service. There are earth slumps and land slips in soft ground.
Reactions: Waves are seen on the ground surface. The lines of sight and level are distorted.
XII Damage: Total damage with practically all works of construction greatly damaged or
destroyed. Objects are thrown upward into the air.
6.2.3 Seismic Risk Zone Assigned to the Study Area
Petersen et al. (2004) predicted rock acceleration across the Malaysian Peninsular
range from 0.04 g to 0.012 g for OBE (operating base earthquakes event with a 475-
year return period and 0.08 g to 0.020 g for SSE (save -short down earthquakes
event with a 10,000-year return period. This value falls into the small earthquake
category (M L < 6) of the Richter magnitude scale (Table 10.3).
Secondly, it is proposed by MOSTI (2009) that Malaysia is subdivided into five (5)
zones (Figure 6.8) of different degree of risks, based on the Modified Mercalli
Intensities (MMI) and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) values as shows below:
i) Peninsular Malaysia was identified as having Zones 4 (in western

Peninsular with MMI scale of V), Zones 5 (along the inner western
Peninsula Malaysia with MMI scales of III and I
From the overall analysis, the study area falls under earthquake, M L < 6 of the
Richter magnitude scales (Table 10.3) which correspond to earthquake hazards
Zone 4. This imply that the magnitude of earthquake in Bukit Tinggi is relatively low
and the local magnitude (M L< 6) that may be experience in the study area are small
earthquakes and damages are minimal (Table 6.5). The construction of major and
critical structures in the study area would need to take this zonation into
consideration at their planning stage. A seismic acceleration of 0.09g is considered
appropriate for design of structures.
51
Figure 6.8: Earthquake Hazard Zonation MOSTI (2009)
`
7.0. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
a) The proposed site is situated entirely on hill crest and side slopes with an
undulating terrain with the elevation is ranging from about RL 871.00m (at the south
section of the site) to RL919.50m (at the north east-section of the site). Highest point
is RL 91.52m at the north-east section of the study area.
b) The proposed project site is underlain by Main Range Granite of Lower to

Upper Triassic Age. On the surface, no bedrock encountered except at Locality 5 at
the drainage valley. Bedrock can be found in the boreholes within the study area with
various depth ranging from 7.5m up to 19.5m.
c) The site is a hilly and undulating ground with mainly moderately steep
slopes
(16° - 25°) which cover 37.91% of the project site. The steep slopes (26 - 35°) cover
about 27.58 % of the project site. The flat to gently sloping areas (0 ° - 15°) cover
27.31% of the project site. Only 7.20% of the project site is covered by very steep
slope (>35°).
d) The site is largely classified as Class I and Class II that has low to moderate
geotechnical limitations and highly suitable for development cover 57.05% of the site.
Class III which has high geotechnical limitations and low suitability for development
covers about 28.85% of the study area. Less than 15.0% is Class IV that has
extreme
geotechnical limitations.
e) Except for the erosion at the valley, there is no serious erosion observed
within the site which is mostly covered with vegetation of primary and secondary
forest except for the slope failure area which is severely eroded
f) The site is within a low magnitude seismic zone.
g) The project site is prone to landslide if no precaution taken during

construction stage and no mitigation measures considered after the
completion of works. Debris flow might not occur due to no colluvial
deposits noted on the natural slopes within and above the study
area. However. The site falls within a low magnitude tremors due to
its location near the Bukit Tinggi Active Fault.
7.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
(a) The Construction Suitability Plan developed can be used as a planning guide
for the planning of this project.
(b) Since the study area is located on the side slopes, it It is recommended that
engineering geological mapping be carried out during construction stage especially
on the cut slopes to assess the stability of the cut slopes.
(c) The detail geological terrain mapping maps can be used as references for the
preliminary review of this development project as these plans (construction suitability
plan and terrain) are prepared based on the topographic plans prepared by the
licensed surveyor. as the base.
(d) Platforming for the building or those adjacent to in Classes 3 and 4 slopes
should be continually monitored in order to mitigate the problems of landslides.
(e) The Construction Suitability should be used by the Consultant Engineer as a

guide for planning. the development of the proposed project by Messrs. Sparkling
Realty Sdn Bhd.
(f) The Land or District Office should use the resulting Construction Suitability
Plan for the approval of the project layout.
(g) Proactive measures have to be carried out to avoid occurrence of landslide or

debris flow and all the foundation and structural design must be taken into account
the earthquake tremors that might be experienced in the future. Please refer to
Malaysian Standard- MS EN-1998-1:2015 (National Annex:2017), Department of
Standard Malaysia- Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
for details.
e) Appropriate considerations should be given to the low magnitude

seismicity.
References:
Anon, 1982, Land surface evaluation for engineering practice, Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, Vol. 15, 265-316
A.D. Barnett, D.C. Cox, H.O. Jones and K.A. Stkyes, (1980), Geotechnical Area
Study, Geotechnical Control Public Worus Department Hong Kong.
Attewell, P. B. 1993. The role of Engineering Geology in the design of surface and
underground structures. In Hudson, J. A. (ed.) Comprehensive rock engineering,
Volume 1, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 111-154.
British Standards Institution, 1999, Code of Practice for Site Investigations,

BS5930:1999. British Standard Institution, London
Chan, N. W. 2012. Impacts of Disasters and Disasters Risk Management in

Malaysia: The Case of Floods, in Sawada, Y. and S. Oum (eds.), Economic and
Welfare Impacts of Disasters in East Asia and Policy Responses. ERIA Research
Project Report 2011-8, Jakarta: ERIA. pp.503-551.
Che Noorliza Lat & Ahmad Tajuddin Ibrahim. 2009. Bukit Tinggi earthquakes: November
2007 – January 2008. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 55 (2009) 81 – 86,
Chow, W. S. and Mohamad, Z., 2002, Terrain Mapping for Landuse Planning,
Second IKRAM International Geotechnical Conference (IGEO-2), 28-29 Oct 2002,
Kuala Lumpur
Dearman, W. R., 1991, Engineering Geological Mapping, Butterworth-Heinemann,

London, pp 378
Department of Standards Malaysia. 2017. Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 8: design of

structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings (MS EN 1998-1:2015). Kuala Lumpur: Department of Standards Malaysia.
Faisal Hj. Ali and Tew Kia Hui. 2006. A Near Real-time Early Warning System on
Erosion Hazards. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 2 (4): 146-153, 2006
Fookes, P. G., 1997, Geology for engineers: the geological model, prediction and
performance, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 30, pp 1-152.
Fookes, P. G., Baynes, F. J. and Hutchison, J. N., 2000, Total Geological History: A
Model Approach to the Anticipation, Observation and Understanding of Site
Conditions, GeoEng2000, Volume 1, Invited Papers, Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.,
pp 370-460.
Geology of the Malay Peninsular (West Malaysia & Singapore), D.J Gobbelt & C.S
Hutchison, 1973.
Geotechnical area Studies Programe (Teeritory of Hong Kong) Vol. 1 & 2 -

K.A.Styles
& A.Hansen September 1989.
Haliza Abdul Rahmana, Jabil Mapjabil. 2017. Landslides Disaster in Malaysia: An

Overview. Health and the Environment Journal, 2017, Vol. 8, No. 1. Pp 58 – 71
Huebl, J. and Steinwendtner, H. 2000. Debris Flow Hazard Assessment and Risk
Mitigation. Felsbau, Rock and Soil Engineering (Vol 1, pp. 17-23). Verlag Glueckauf
Huebl, J. and Fiebiger, G. 2005. Debris-Flow Mitigation Measures. In: Jakob, M. And
Hungr, O. (eds), Debris Flow Hazards
nd
Hunt, R. E., 2005, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Handbook, 2 Edition,
Taylor&Francis, USA, 1066 pp.
Ibrahim Mohamed Shaluf and Fakhru'l-Razi Ahmadun. 2006. Disaster types in

Malaysia: An overview. Disaster Prevention and Management 15(2): 286 – 298.
Chan, N. W. (2012),
Kienholz,H. 2003. Early Warning Systems Related to Mountain Hazards. In: J.

Zschau and A. Kueppers (eds), Early Warning Systems for Natural Disaster
Reduction: 3rd International IDNDR Conference on Early Warning Systems for the
Reduction of Natural Disasters. Postdam, 1998 (pp. 555-564), Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Malay Mail. Genting Highlands hit by landslide.18 November 2014
Masahiro Chigira, Zainab Mohamad, Lim Choun Sian & Ibrahim Komoo. 2011.
Landslides in weathered granitic rocks in Japan and Malaysia. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of Malaysia 57 (2011) 1 – 6
Malaysian Meteorological Department (MMD) 2008. http://www.

kjc.gov.my/english/service/seismology/seismoevent.html
Malaysian Standard- MS EN-1998-1:2015 (National Annex:2017), Department of

Standard Malaysia- Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings
Mohamad, Z. and Chow, W. S., 2003, Geological Terrain Mapping in Cameron

Highlands district, Pahang, Annual Geological Conference 2003, Kuching,
Sarawak, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia No. 46, Special Conference
Issue.
MOSTI. 2009. Seismic and Tsunami hazards and Risks study in Malaysia. Final
report. Summary for policy makers
Mustaffa Kamal Shuib. 2009. The recent Bukit Tinggi earthquakes and their
relationship to major geological structures. Bulletin of the Geological Society of
Malaysia 55. 67-72
New Straits Times. Landslides in Genting Highlands. 18 November 2014
New Straits Times. Road collapses near Institut Aminuddin Baki Genting Highlands.
6 April 2018
Ng Kim Yeong (2012). Rainfall-Induced Landslides in Hulu Kelang Area, Malaysia.
Bsc Thesis. Faculty Of Engineering And Science. Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
Petersen, M. D., Dewey, J., Hartzell, S., Mueller, C., Harmsen, S., Frankel, A and
Rukstales K. 2004. “Probabilistic seismic hazards analysis for Sumatra, Indonesia
and across the southern Malaysia Peninsular”. Tectonic 390:141-158.
Ritcher, 1935. An instrument Earthquake magnitude scale. Bull seismol.Soc.

Am.,25:1-32. USGS (1989).
Roberts Soeters and Van Western (1996). Slope Instability Recognition, Analysis and
Zonation. In Landslide: Investigation and Mitigation
nd
Selby, M. J., 1993, Hillslope Materials and Processes, 2 Edition, Oxford
University Press, New York, pp 451.
Tamotsu Takahashi. 2014. Debris Flow Mechanics, Prediction and
Countermeasures. CRC Press. Taylor and Francis Group.
The Star Online. Road near Genting Highlands caves in. 7 April 2018
USDA, Forest Service. 1979. Technical guide, erosion prevention and control on
timber sales areas. Intermountain Region.
Wikipedia. Genting Sempah–Genting Highlands Highway

APPENDIX A
LIST OF TABLES
`
Table 4.1: Terrain Classification and Landuse Hazards Zonation

Attributes. Mineral and Geoscience Department Malaysia (2010)
Table 4.2: Construction Suitability Classification System
Table 4.3: Construction Suitability Classes and Types of Site
Investigation Required
`
TABLE 4.4: OBSERVATION POINT FOR GEOLOGICAL TERRAIN MAPPING
PHOTOGRAPH AT OBSERVATION POINT (L1)
STUDY AREA: GEOLOGICAL TERRAIN MAPPING FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON LOT 10352
(PLOT 2), MUKIM OF BENTONG, DISTRICT OF BENTONG, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR.
REFERENCE POINT: L1
UTM-X: 807947
UTM-N47: 376093
GPS STATION REF: 122
DATE: 27/08/2020
PHOTO TAKEN BY: Wan Mohamad Nizam Wan Isa
PHOTO A (L1): Panoramic View towards 0o
PHOTO B (L1): Panoramic View towards 90o
PHOTO C (L1): Panoramic View towards 180o
PHOTO D (L1): Panoramic View towards 270o
PHOTO A (L1) PHOTO B (L1)
PHOTO C (L1) PHOTO D (L1)

REFERENCE POINT: L2
UTM-X: 807925
UTM-N47: 376058
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L3
UTM-X: 807896
UTM-N47: 376022
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L4
UTM-X: 807943
UTM-N47: 376056
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L5
UTM-X: 807934
UTM-N47: 376043
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L6
UTM-X: 807921
UTM-N47: 376013
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L7
UTM-X: 807938
UTM-N47: 376077
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L8
UTM-X: 807978
UTM-N47: 376042
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L9
UTM-X: 807966
UTM-N47: 376017
DATE: 27/08/2020

REFERENCE POINT: L10
UTM-X: 807961
UTM-N47: 375993
DATE: 27/08/2020

UTM-X: 808007
UTM-N47: 376000
DATE: 27/08/2020

UTM-X: 807828
UTM-N47: 375970
DATE: 27/08/2020

UTM-X: 807900
UTM-N47: 376089
DATE: 27/08/2020

UTM-X: 807859
UTM-N47: 376067
DATE: 27/08/2020

UTM-X: 807836
UTM-N47: 376012
DATE: 27/08/2020

APPENDIX B
LIST OF FIGURES
(A3/A1 size)
`
PLEASE ATTACH A3 OR A1 SIZE FOR ALL

THEMATIC MAPS LISTED IN THE LIST OF FIGURES
HERE FOR SUBMISSION

GENTING SEMPAH REPORT-AMENDED 23-9-2020 CTT Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

GENTING SEMPAH REPORT-AMENDED 23-9-2020 CTT Edited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GENTING SEMPAH REPORT-AMENDED 23-9-2020 CTT Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGY TERRAIN MAPPING REPORT for

PERMOHONAN KEBENARAN MERANCANG MENGIKUT SEKSYEN 21, AKTA PERANCANGAN

DR TOH AND ASSOCIATES SDN BHD

2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY AND METHODOLOGY 7

3.0 GEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA 11

4.0 RESULT OF TERRAIN MAPPING 15

5.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 30

7.0. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table Table 4.1: TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION AND LANDUSE HAZARDS ZONATION

Table 4.2: CONSTRUCTION SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Table Table 4.3: CONSTRUCTION SUITABILITY CLASSES AND TYPES OF SITE

Table 4.4: OBSERVATION POINTS FOR TERRAIN MAPPING

Figure 1.1: Key map of the study area

1.2 Site Location

Figure 1.2: Google Image showing the Project Site Location

Any interpretation or recommendation given in this report shall be understood to be based on

2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Scope of study

The scope of this study is as follows:

a) To map the surface geology and including rock type

b) To study and classify the geomorphology, hydrogeology and surface

d) To study and evaluate the anticipate geohazards of the study area

The processes of geological terrain mapping can be summarized as follows:

i) Conduct of field reconnaissance survey to assess the accessibility, location of prominent

v) Conduct of field survey. Locate reference points (boundary/iron pipe) by using

vii) Re-analysis the amended polygons and produce finalized plan.

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Based on the Geological Map of Peninsular Malaysia (2014) published by the

The igneous rock consists of hypidiomorphic-granular, coarse-grained biotite granite.

3.2 SITE GEOLOGY

Plate 1: Granite outcrop (Grade II and III) found at Locality 5.

4.3 Slope Gradient

4.5 Terrain Analysis

4.6 Terrain Morphology/Landform

4.7 Activity of Slope

4.8 Erosion and Instability

4.10 Construction Suitability

PLEASE DELTE ITEMS IN RED

5.1 Engineering Consideration of Various Geological Materials

5.1.1 Residual Soil

5.1.2 Colluvial Slopes

Plate 5.3. Colluvial deposit at the toe of old landslide (LS1).

5.1.4 Fill Slopes

5.1.5 Weathering Profile

6.0 Potential Geohazards

6.1 Landslide Geohazard

1) To gather all available information on the previous landslides

6.1.1 Previous Landslides around site location in Genting Highlands and

Year Notes Source/ Quote by

18 November A landslide, caused by heavy rain, forced the closure of Wikipedia

5 November A major landslide struck Genting Highlands in Bentong https://www.nst.com.my/

It is believed that there are more landslides/slope failures incident at Genting

Table 6.2: Morphologic features charateristics of slope instabilities.

6.1.3 Identification of Anticipated Landslides and Relict/Recent Landslide at

The potential environment impact predicted is mechanical and chemical evolution

6.2.1 Tectonic Setting

6.2.2 Incidences of tremors Earthquakes in Relation to Study Area